Disability and Accessibility
We strive to ensure all our communications are respectful to all and accessible for all .
Identity-first versus person-first language
The most prominent language divide within disability communities is the divide between person-first and identity-first language .
Person-first language , such as “ people with disabilities '' or “ woman with paraplegia ”, is commonly used by Australian organisations to avoid an unnecessary focus on a person ’ s disability . However , many see people-first language as outdated , implying that disability is something negative or derogatory , and out of line with the social model of disability due to its tendency to overly pathologise .
4 . “ Overcoming / triumphing over disability ” which reinforces conceptions of disabled people as inspirational .
5 . Patronising euphemisms such as “ specially abled ”, “ differently abled ”, “ challenged ”, “ special needs ”, “ handicapable ”.
Pay attention to words and expressions that can make their way into everyday speech (“ it fell on deaf ears ”, “ they were blind to the argument ”) as these refer to behaviour and attitude rather than ability . Expressions like “ he is crazy ”, “ that was mental ”, “ she went completely psycho ”, while rarely intended to cause harm , may be upsetting for a person with lived experience of a mental health condition .
Refer to a person ’ s disability only when necessary and relevant , and don ’ t define people by one attribute alone .
people with disability , disabled people the disabled
Many disabled people and self-advocacy networks instead prefer identity-first language , for example “ disabled person ” or “ deaf woman ”, positioning disability as an identity category like any other rather than a biological limitation . This aligns closely with the social model of disability – that disabled people are only limited by a culture of inaccessibility and negative attitudes .
While modern disability discourse skews toward identity-first language due to its liberationist and social perspective , this is an ongoing debate and the choice is entirely up to the person in question . If you don ’ t know what language a person prefers , just ask .
Intellectual disability
1 . “ Intellectual disability ” and “ people with intellectual disability ” is typically the most appropriate language in Australia .
2 . “ Cognitive disability ” is an appropriate term when referring to a broader umbrella of disabilities .
3 . “ Developmental disability ” is considered pathologising and should typically be avoided .
Language to avoid
1 . “ Disabled ” toilets or facilities – instead use “ accessible ”.
2 . “ Wheelchair-bound ” – wheelchairs liberate and enable mobility ; they do not confine . “ Wheelchair user ” is more appropriate when access must be highlighted .
3 . Language of “ disclosure ” of disability , as this can imply secrecy or shame .
Writing Style Guide | Equity , diversity and inclusion people with epilepsy D / deaf people person with paraplegia person with quadriplegia person of short stature
person with cognitive disability , person with intellectual disability
person with learning disability person with a brain injury
person with psychosocial disability , person with a mental health condition , person with [ insert name of their condition , if you know it and you have their permission to disclose it ]
person without disability , nondisabled person
autistic person , person with autism , person on the autism spectrum , neuroatypical , neurodivergent
People who use a wheelchair or mobility device epileptics people who are deaf paraplegic quadriplegic dwarf , midget intellectually challenged
special needs brain-damaged manic , mentally unstable
able-bodied , abled , healthy , well , normal
high functioning autism , profoundly autistic
Wheelchair-bound , confined to a wheelchair
31 | Back to contents